WOMEN CAN BE PRIESTS

Woman in the Early Church: A Study of Romans 16, from 'Woman as Priest, Bishop and Laity in the Early Church to 440 A.D. by Arthur Frederick Ide

Woman in the Early Church: A Study of Romans 16

Woman as Priest, Bishop and Laity in the Early Church
to 440 A.D.by Arthur Frederick Ide, Ide House 1984, pp.
27-40.Published on our website with the kind permission of the author

Contrary to the rhetoric of Roman pontiffs from the sixth to the
twentieth century, women did serve as ministers: deacons, priests, and bishops
in the early Catholic Church and Christian community. In general, they were
called diakonosa word which at that time was understood to mean
ministers rather than deaconesses (e.g. aids to the
ministers). The Latin of Pliny the Younger reads, quite clearly:>

[
Even this practice [sharing in the [Agape: Holy Communion], however, they had
abandoned after the publication of my edict by which, according to your orders,
I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary
to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female
slaves, who were styled ministers, but I could discover nothing more than
depraved andexcessive superstition.}

Plinys accounts, similar to those left by other civil servants,
record in detail how the ministrae stood fast for the faith
and how their congregations mourned the passing of their shepherds who
they call also diakonos.(1)

The
acceptance, ordination and commissioning of women to serve as ministrae
within the early Christian community is well documented. The Greek educated
legalist, St. Paul, himself greeted them as leaders of congregations, joined
with them, worshiped with them, and took bread with them. The fullest statement
on Pauls knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of women in the clergy
is found in the sixteenth chapter of Pauls Letter to the Romans, which
more than probably was delivered to the congregation of Christians by a woman:
Phoebe, inasmuch as the first lines read:

The
Latin shows that she was the minister of the church in Cenchrea: Commendo
autem robis Phoebem sororem nostrum quae est in ministerio ecclesiae quae est
Cencris. This introduction, however, tells the reader even more, for the
salutation is also a letter of commendation which was a necessity when a
Christian traveled from one community to another where that Christian would be
unknown. Additionally, by selecting and sending a woman from one church to
another demonstrates Pauls awareness not only of the existence of women,
but also their determination to carry any Christian message to any place.
Third, as read in line 2: Ut eam suscipiatis in Domino digne sanctis et
adsistatis ei in quocumque negotio vestri indiguerit: etenim ipsa quoque
adsistit multis et mihi ipsi, Phoebe ministered to those who were of
the Christian faith. In this case, this line coupled with the first and the use
of the title of minister or deaconess is a clear mark that she performed the
same office in the church as men who held that rank (cf. Phil. 1:1; I Tim.
3:8-13). This ministry was not only caring for the poor, the sick, and the
desolate, but also a posit for an office: for she, (Paul acknowledges) had even
helped him as she has many others. The faithful of the church in
Rome were enjoined to receive her in the Lord, as was it worthy of the
saints. To accept Jesus was the same as accepting one of his
priestsregardless of the gender of the priest; the phrase as was it
worthy of the saints undoubtedly meant that the new believers in Rome
were to accept Phoebe as she had been accepted by Paul and the apostles,
reflecting on what was owed her by them since she had already been accorded it
by others. At the same time,this phrase suggests that the Roman Christians were
considered worthy if they accepted another believer as themselves.
That Phoebe was a major figure within the Christian community and not just
another helper can be seen in the word prostatis which means
one who presides, and is to be understood in the sense of the verb
proistegi (cf. 12:8). This can be the only correct meaning and
interpretation of this word; Paul develops into the faith with her assistance,
rather than springs into a miraculous full understanding of the fine points of
Christianity which makes greater sense than the ossified and chauvinistic
interpretation so many male theologians give to this passage, making Paul
appear as a Minervaspringing from the head of a god-fully adorned and
enlightened. This interpretation gives Paul back his humanity and helps to
explain Peters difficulty with Pauls seeming lack of Christian
understanding. This interpretation is further enforced and enhanced by noting
the position of the name within the salutation - it places Phoebe at the
citadel of the missiona person who had the full confidence of the writer,
and thereby was undoubtedly the intimate of the writer. Furthermore, because of
her closeness to Paul, and because of her role in the early Church, Paul
requires the Christians of Rome to give her every assistance - as deacons
render priests and priests give bishops.

Unfortunately ,we know nothing else of this woman (whether or not she
married, was learned and wrote, or was a simple woman moved by an intense
personal faith to weather all storms both natural and man-made). All we do know
is that Phoebe was joined in her missionary work by other women.

Priscilla (also known as Prisca) is listed among the other
women of the early Christian Church who toiled for the faith.
She, too, along with Aquila, was saluted by Paul, who recognized his debt to
both.

Paul
met Priscilla and Aquila at Corinth (Acts 18:2), where they gave him shelter.
Later they went with Paul to Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19). While Paul continued his
travels Priscilla and Aquila remained behind to teach Apollo the fundamentals
of Christianity (Acts 18:26). By the time Paul wrote his letter to the Roman
congregation they had returned to their native land (Romans 1:4), since the
Emperor Claudius had died and his decrees against the Christians were no longer
in effect for various reasons. Paul remembered Priscilla and Aquila long after
he parted company with them in Ephesus (cf. 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19). He had
great respect for both, and saw each as his equal, calling them
fellow-workers in Christ Jesus (Salutate Priscam et Aquilam
adjutores meos in Christo Jesu), not only because they had risked their
lives to save his (qui pro anima mea suas cervices subposuerunt) but
because they worked hard for the continuance and furtherance of the Church
(quibus non solu ego gratias ago sed et cunctae ecclesiae gentium). Not
only did Priscilla and Aquila work for the Church universal and the church of
Rome, but even gave it the physical shelter of their own home (et domesticam
eorum ecclesiam). An English trans-ation of the Greek would
read:

Greet Priscilla and Aquila who are my helpers in Jesus Christ, for
they have risked their lives to save my life, for which not only do I render
gratitude, but so,too do all the Churches of the
Gentiles.

Again,we have clear evidence of the contribution a woman (Priscilla)
made to the Church. Not only did a woman save Pauls life, but ministered:
to Apollo and to the church in Rome. The fact that she invited the embryo
community of Christians in Rome to use her home as a meeting place shows how
firm she was in her faith and her willingness to suffer for it, for giving
quarters to a banned sect could sound ones own death peal. As to whether
or not the house of Priscilla and Aquilla was used by all of the Christian
community of Rome is but speculation. Although it is difficult to imagine that
there was but a single community of Christians in Rome, nowhere in this letter
of Paul do we read of other congregations in Rome existing or meeting outside
of Priscillas home. To suggest, as some theological commentators have,
that the city of Rome must be viewed similar to the city of Ephesus, as based
on 1 Cor. 16:19, is presuming too much. There is no scriptural foundation to
support the often given argument that there were churches in Romethe text
is quite clear: it speaks of the church in Rome which meets in the home of
Priscilla and Aquila (et domesticam eorum ecclesiam).

What
of Epaenetus? Epaenetus is belovedas is Ampliatus (vs. 8),
Stachys (vs. 9), and Persis (vs. 12). We know nothing else, except that
Epaenetus was the first convert to Christianity in Asia; but inasmuch as he is
mentioned by name,we can assume that he was also instrumental in bringing
others to the Christian faiththus Paul would feel a particularly strong
affection for him.

Line 6
brings to notice yet another woman: Mary. She,too, labored for the early
Church. The fact that Paul emphasizes the fact that she had much
labored indicates that she was among the earliest converts to the church
in Rome, was a part of its organizing group, and continued her work in the
churchprobably under the direction of Priscilla (Salutate Mariam, quae
multum laboravit in vobis) who headed the early group of faithful. Since
this is but speculation, should it be fact then might not Priscilla have been a
bishop or a co-bishop in the absence of Peter? Every indication is that Paul
received most of his information from Priscilla; she would have had to have had
power and authority to make such reports; the fact that Paul would cite her
and, thus,the reports indirectly shows that her correspondence was certainly
not clandestine.

Andronicus and Junias are mentioned in line 7. They were Jewish (cf.
9:3) and kinsmen of the Apostle (this need not mean more than that
they were Jewish, but could also mean blood relatives, as might be Herodion
(vs. 11), Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater (vs. 21) since there are other Jews
mentioned who are not called kinsmenor reltives", as in
vs. 3). Andronicus and Junias shared a couple of other distinctions: they had
been imprisoned with Paul although we dont know where), and may have been
apostles since they were Christians before Pauls conversion, and were
possibly associated with the other apostles in Jerusalem or Judea, for the line
reads who are of importance among the apostles, who were in Christ before
I was" (Salutate Andronicum et Juliam cognatos et concaptivos meos, qui sunt
nobiles in apostolis, qui et ante me fuerunt in Christo).

Verses
8 - 11 are salutations. Urbanus (vs. 9) was probably a native Roman.
Aristobulus was not necessarily Christianhe is mentioned (vs. 10) only
because he gave shelter to Christians.(2) At the same time, this verse does not
state nor does it imply that all of his household was Christian, any more than
it does in the case of Narcissus and his household (vs. 11).

Line
12 has greater importance. It begins with a recognition of two women, Tryphaena
and Tryphosa, who were probably sisters. Persis is also mentioned; Persis is
also a woman. All three women, the letter acknowledges, labored in the
lord. The fact that Paul refers to Persis as having labored
much can only mean that he was not certain if she was still
working in the missionfield. It does not mean that she was old or
infirmed - only that he had no knowledge of her current status and zeal. The
fact that Paul calls Persis the beloved indicates that she had
already earned her recognition among the faithful and in his eyes.

Rufus
may be the son of Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15 : He too was a
laboreras was his mother. His mother is more significant.
Although the line literally reads Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and
his mother and mine (Salutate Rufum electum in Domino, et matrem ejus
et meam), it does not mean that Rufus mother was also the mother of
Paul. Instead, it is to be read and understood that Rufus mother acted as
if she were a mother to him: ministering to his physical and emotional
needsbut when or where this mothering took place we have no
knowledge.

Line
14 is all-male in nature. It is a statement of a certain community of
believersall of whom are male: Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas,
Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them. The importance of
it is in the location it enjoys; it is after the salutation is played to the
prominent women of the communitya salutation usually reserved for men,
but in this case, to cite a scripture overly quoted those who would be
first are last, and those who are last become first. The full extent and
impact of this reality is seen in the order of the text, lines
12-14.

The
importance of woman returns with line 15. With little doubt, Julia is a woman.
It is a common name- one found even among slave women in the imperial
household.(3) She may have been the wife of Philogus. That she is coupled with
other men and women indicates only that she is a member of the Christian
community.

The
heart of the letter does not appear until line 16. There the encouragement of
the osculum pacis, a holy kiss is madean encouragement which is an
enjoinment, and not truly an option. It is similar to Pauls enjoinment to
the Christian community at Corinth (1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12), and to the
church at Thessaly (1 Thess. 5:26).

Peter
gives the same charge, calling it the kiss of love (1 Peter 5:14). It was not a
Christian innovation, nor was it sexual in intent or nature. Instead it was a
customary greeting which was a token of peace, respect and goodwill: a token
Christ demanded from Simon the Pharisee in his reprimand Do you not give
me a kiss? (Luke 7:45), and which became a sign of hypocrisy when Judas
misused it, betraying his Christ (Luke 22:48).

The
preeminence and paramount distinction of the church of Rome is testified to
when Paul declares that the churches of Christ salute you
(Salutant vos omnes ecclesiae Christi). The significance of this
recognition isthat the group who receives this letter and this recognition is
led by a woman at the time the letter arrivesPhoebe. Peter is not
mentionedtherefore he, at least tacitly placed the shepherding of the
church into her hands. This is strengthened even further, for Paul immediately
gives directions to the community of faithful, expecting Phoebe and the other
ministrae to see that his word is heard and his injunctions
followed:

The
mood and expression of style is severe. It is an admonition and injunction. It
is not a point of reference or a subject for debate. It is a warning, stern and
forceful, cautioning the faithful to be aware of false prophets and false
teachers. Paul does not include women in either category, nor does he call them
heretics or worse. Lines 17-18 considers those who serve their own ends
(their own bellies: Hujuscemodi enim Christo Domino nostro non
serviunt sed suo ventri) to be troublemakers (seducunt corda
innocentium, literally: deceive the hearts of the simple).
False teachers could be Judazing zealots, who were Pauls most heated
opponents, whom he believed would not only cause divisions within the Christian
community, but also narrow its appeal, for few Gentile men relished the
prospect of a circumcision. Paul does not want the congregation to take these
false teachers onnot only because there is a strong
possibility that they could not respond to a debate with any learned discourse,
but moreso because he believed the holy Spirit would champion the faithful.
Throughout his warning there is no mention of the sex of the
deceivers or the beguilers. The innocent
are not defined, either, by gender. The Pauline message is one to all
persons.

Line
19 reflects once more on the maturity of the church of Rome. The fame of the
Christian community at Rome had become universally known, respected, and loved
throughout the corpus Christianorum. The crucial place Rome and its
church played in the scheme of things and in the world as an order, and the
church as a whole was major and had to be retained in its purest form. Nowhere
does Paul say or imply that the church of Rome in which Phoebe and the other
women labored much was filled with false teachings or
any other form of corruption. He does not ask nor does he demand
that Phoebe or any of the other holy womenor any of the other
women who were not called holystep down; instead the Apostle reiterates
his assurance of their fidelity and rejoices in the good fortune of the church
in Rome (vs. 19f). Because of their faith, and the faith of the congregation at
Rome,God will crush Satan completely. After this,he gives his benediction, and
even allows his secretary,Tertius,to include his own greeting to the church
(Saluto vos ego Tertius, qui scripsi epistulam, in Domino). The
remaining lines are a doxology.

So
what is the significance of the sixteenth chapter of Pauls letter to the
congregation in Rome?

More
than anything else Romans 16 shows conclusively that women were co-workers in
the early Christian church. Since the letter was written approximately A.D. 57,
it demonstrates the extent of the work of women and the high regard they were
held in by men of the stature of Paul. The spread of Christianity took place
not only because women were accepted into the early church, but because they
zealously, devotedly, urgently worked to promote it, spread the gospel,
evangelize, and care for those who hungered for some mental relief and promise
of a better life to come. Of the twenty-eight people Paul salutes, ten were
womenand they came first. Even the highly critical bishop of
Constantinople, John Chrysostom, who seldom had little favorable to say about
women, had to write concerning Pauls greeting to Mary in Romans 16:
6:(4)

How
is this? A woman is again honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men
put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor
conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women among us,
but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind them. . . . For
the women of those days were more spirited than lions.

The
sixteenth chapter of the Letter to the Romans also gives proof that women were
highly literate. Some scholars even believe that Priscilla is the author of the
anonymous Letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. Again, St. John
Chrysostom, applauds this possibility indirectly when he writes:(5)

It
is worth examining Pauls motive, when he greets them, for putting
Priscilla before her husband. Indeed, he did not say, Salute Aquila and
Priscilla, but rather, Salute Priscilla and Aquila [vs. 3] He
did not do so without reason: the wife must have had, I think, greater pity
than her husband. This is not a simple conjecture; its confirmation is evident
in the Acts. Apollos was an eloquent man, well versed in Scripture, but he knew
only the baptism of John; this woman took him, instructed him in the way of
God, and made of him an accomplished teacher.

The
sixteenth chapter of Romans also shows that at least one woman was numbered
among the apostles. Some rather bad scholars have vainly tried to argue that
Junia is a contraction of a much less common male name, but John Chrysostom,
again, noted, Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman that she should
be counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!(6)as did Origen of
Alexandria (c. 185-253), Jerome (340/50-419/20), and other leading thinkers in
the early Church.

At the
same time, Paul acknowledges that he, too,was subordinate to a womana
woman who ruled over him. The word he uses is
prostatisit means, in all Greek literature, ruler-not
helper as some attempt to feigned argue. The same word appears in
the form of a verb (proistamenous) in 1 Thess. 5:12, and there it is
correctly translated as rule over, as it is in 1 Tim. 3:4, 5, and
5:17. This word and its use is strictly regulated to where the references are
to bishops, priests, and deacons!(7)

The
Pauline Letter to the Romans, in short, gives us one of the earliest accounts
of the role and significance of women in the early Christian church and
community where women served not only as faithful wives, but with full
equality beside men as ministrae (priests, bishops, and deacons) of the
faith. To ignore the reality of Romans 16 is to deny the fullness of the
Christian life and message. To refuse to accept women as priests today, is to
deny the historical proof that they were priests in the days of the apostles
who saluted them and were ruled over by them. At best, the 1983 statement by
Pope John Paul II that women will never be priests, because
of Scriptural prohibitions is ludicrous; at worse the pontifical
pronouncement is dangerous, blasphemous, heretical and destructive to the
Christian faith, if left unchallenged.

7. J.
Massyngberde Ford, Biblical Material Relevant to the Ordination of
Women, in Journal of Ecumenical Studies X.4 (Fall, 1973), pp.
676f. See my Woman in the Apostolic Age (Mesquite, 1980), and my
History of Ordination of Women in the Early Church (Saskatoon,
1975).